get_bond_with_warrant

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions analysis types but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only query, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data or reports, or handles errors. For a financial analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavior undocumented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the analytical focus without fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with the tool's action verb to improve clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's focus on financial risk analysis with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis outputs (e.g., risk scores, textual reports, numerical data), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like data sources or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in Korean for corp_code, bgn_de, and end_de. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for dates beyond the schema's examples or how parameters influence the analysis. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool analyzes '신주인수권부사채 발행을 통한 지분희석 가능성과 재무레버리지 리스크' (equity dilution potential and financial leverage risk through warrant bond issuance), which provides a specific analytical purpose. However, it's vague about what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieves, calculates, or analyzes data) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_convertible_bond or get_corporate_bond_outstanding that might handle related financial instruments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for analysis, or compare to sibling tools like get_convertible_bond for similar financial analysis. The user must infer usage from the analytical focus alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.